The potential fine is quite large, but that’s not the only thing of the ordinary about this recall: Volkswagen deceived not just regulators, but customers too—many of whom bought these vehicles precisely because they wanted clean diesel cars.

According to documents obtained by the Guardian, Apple has appointed an engineering program manager (EPM) to Project Titan. EPMs generally arrive on an Apple project once a product is ready to leave the lab, and coordinate the work of teams of hardware and software engineers.

Autoevolution: One of the big new features in the new 2016 BMW 7 Series cars is a gesture control. “The system uses a 3D sensor installed in the roof lining of the car, next to the rearview mirror. It recognizes the hand gestures of the driver, as long as he keeps his hand between the steering wheel, dash and the gearshift lever. The system works best if you use gestures close to the dash and in front of the iDrive screen.”

The big question among automakers is whether they will be the ones to provide new technologies — and profit from them — or will major tech companies like Google and Apple take a slice of the industry. For now, the two sides are balancing cooperation against competition as they gauge what the future holds.

General Motors CEO Mary Barra succinctly expressed a common view, asserting that “we will see more change in the industry in the next five to ten years than we have in the last 50.”

An arm on the steering column (not much different from a windshield wiper arm) could be pulled to engage a car’s self-driving mode; at that point, the system would do a check to see whether it’s ready and able to actually take control from the driver. If it isn’t — the car can’t get a GPS lock, for instance — the driver might see a “Not Available” light on the dash. Otherwise, you’d see a “Ready” light, at which point you can start taking your appendages off the wheel and pedals.

The connected car will feature a high number of interfaces (e.g., to infrastructure, to other vehicles, and to some cloud-based platform) for which common standards are required (cross-brand, cross-geographies). Building an ecosystem of multiple OEMs with a shared platform might turn out to be a more promising way for them to succeed than to try competing on their own.

In such an ecosystem, OEMs and other players could cooperate using the same (software) platform to reach sufficient scale and to acquire specific capabilities for providing functionalities and services while keeping control over data flows.

They could, I suppose. Under perfect cooperation. But that’s not very likely. That’s one reason (of several) why Google has developed an autonomous automobile platform. And also one reason why Apple thinks its integrated hardware-software approach will be an advantage.

Who’s going to win the coming auto wars? The answer is twofold: whoever can crack the Chinese market wide open, and whichever company can avoid getting distracted by the lure of entertainment technologies and can stay focused on advances to ease the actual task of driving.

“The future of autonomous driving is more likely to take place in an urban environment than on the German Autobahn,” he said. “That’s why we believe the future of autonomous driving is the small car.” […]

The Germans are moving into [autonomous driving] technology aggressively because they have a lot to lose. Every seventh job in Germany is pegged to the auto industry. […]

“Whether our customers are the premium manufacturers in Germany, local volume brands in China, or Apple, our business [as a components technology] doesn’t change,” said ZF’s Mr. Sommer. “It is more of a danger for the auto manufacturers.”

A person with knowledge of Apple’s secretive “Project Titan” revealed to AppleInsider this week that the company is currently facing problems as it plans out a manufacturing site for the anticipated “Apple Car.” They said the company’s timeframe, in which it would like to begin manufacturing within five years, may result in Apple seeking out a partnership with another, already-established player in the automotive space.

The new Volvo XC90 SUV […] has a feature called Pilot Assist that completely takes over driving in low-speed roads. As long as you’re going under 30 mph, the car can steer, brake, accelerate and keep you in your lane. […]

The feature is pushed as a way to alleviate the stressful foot-pumping that comes with stop-and-go traffic. By focusing on this narrow problem, Volvo makes the benefits of their system both obvious and relatable. […]

This is a smart tactic. If you tell somebody that a car will drive itself, you risk scaring them—or hearing that all-too-common response that often comes along with new consumer technologies: “Why do I need this in my life?” By focusing on specific use cases such as stop-and-go traffic, manufacturers such as Volvo effectively answer that question.

In another move that could speed the adoption of self-driving cars, ten automakers pledged on Friday to outfit all of their new cars with automatic braking systems, which use on-vehicle sensors to apply the driver’s brakes if a collision with a car or any other object is imminent.

[Intel] announced the establishment of the Automotive Security Review Board (ASRB). The board will encompass top security industry talent across the globe with particular areas of expertise in cyber-physical systems

“You have to step back and say why is that and would a separation actually solve whatever the underlying issues are that are creating the current valuation?,” he said. “You have to be careful that it’s not too simplistic an analysis.”

That’s one of the most un-asked questions ever, in most mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures: “would [it] actually solve […] the underlying issues?”

Link to the Tweet1. (Above is a screenshot, to make sure readers can also see it in RSS or email.)

First, this is outstanding. Hope Tesla can deliver on the timing, price, and capability. Second, it’s just one more element, in my view, that Apple considered in its decision to pursue a car, and how intensely to do so. Specifically, Apple would have considered the rate at which key costs would come down (battery and related systems; driver assistance and related systems) down and, from that, how quickly Tesla, Toyota, and others would reach mass market (or near mass market) prices.

Prius, starting at $24,000 is already there (US-centric view). Tesla is two years away, if we assume Elon Musk’s estimate is solid. Combine that with Tesla’s ability to execute (battery, design, product definition, marketing), and these factors likely add to some of the urgency Apple feels. And that’s before we even consider Google’s advances. But, I emphasize, competitor progress is just one element.

By the way, by barely mentioning the Prius, am I implying that Apple pays more attention to Tesla’s progress than Toyota’s? Yes. Tesla has more capability, and more potential, to capitalize on the current (poor) state of cars than Toyota. For simplicity, think about it on this one level: how much emotion do you think a Prius stirs in most people? And a Tesla? … Yep.

______

1. Tip of the hat to Drew Olanoff, at TechCrunch; I learned about Elon Musk’s Tweets from his article.

Patton said in a recent interview that high-tech suppliers like Denso see “lane-keeping” technology as a next step for some automotive brands. A lot of cars already offer Lane Departure Warning. As the name suggests, it notifies the driver if they are straying out of their lane in what looks like an inattentive way. Lane-keeping actually directs the car back where it belongs.

“If you ask me what’s available tomorrow, the next thing is lane-keeping. And when I say tomorrow, I mean literally tomorrow. In the next year or so you’re going to start seeing a lot of those kinds of technologies,” he said.

Also:

Patton recalled driving through a thunderstorm. He decided to keep driving, even though visibility was terrible. In his opinion, when his car got to a railroad crossing in the poor visibility, a truly autonomous car might have stopped, and refused to cross the tracks.

Despite automakers’ (assumed) aim for a truly autonomous car, new and un-tested scenarios will likely test its abilities. In that case, the “rules of dis-engagment” – when and how the car transitions control back to the driver, will be key. I doubt cars will omit steering wheels for quite some time, even if/when they become autonomous. Both for reasons of safety and fun.

Carmakers are adding everything from remote car unlocking to self-parking systems in their newest models as they try to make vehicles more connected to the Internet and more automated.

But the 2015 Drive Report from market research company JD Power found that 20 percent of new car owners had still not used approximately half of the technology features available in their vehicles after three months of purchase – the period after which drivers are less likely to adopt new features, researchers say. […]

“Customers say, ‘I have a competing technology that’s easier to use, or I’ve already paid for it – so why do I need it again?'” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction at JD Power.

Here you have a situation where:

Many mobile devices (cars) are poorly-designed, and

Overloaded by technology (that is poorly communicated), and

A context where people use smartphones and find them helpful.

… if only there was a company well-positioned and willing to think different about what consumers really value out of the entire car experience.

Few companies so far have shown they can meet the challenge of building advanced batteries with the quality, weight and cost expectations that auto makers demand. And the technology is moving so fast that few auto makers have tried to master the exotic chemistry required.

Few companies indeed. I anticipate, though, that if Apple builds a car, it will seek to control the battery chemistry. In a car, this would give Apple the ability to control these types of factors*:

Design: Size, shape, construction of the battery compartment. This, in turn, can affect the weight, size, and handling of the car.

Performance: Range, battery longevity, power available for supporting systems, etc. These directly affect user experience, enjoyment, anxiety, and even safety.

Cost: Ability to reduce chemistry, manufacturing, recycling, and other costs.

To a limited degree, Apple customizes its battery chemistry today, in its laptops and other mobile devices. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if Apple pursues more intense customization (i.e., in-house technology) in the case of auto batteries.

With regard to smartphones, it’s frequently said that users won’t notice a battery improvement unless it’s 2X – 10X better than existing technology. With electric cars (and presumably Apple’s would be), even a 1.25X improvement (e.g., from 400 miles to 500) is very meaningful, especially if recharging infrastructure rollout lags car production.

Simply put, in entering a new industry where even modest differences in battery performance could matter, Apple has more incentive to innovate. That said, even if Apple does design or very heavily customize its own batteries, it might not do so with the first version of the Apple car. That will depend Apple’s overall priorities for the car.

It would tell us that Apple is millions of miles behind Google, and falling further behind every day.

As one of the few companies in the world richer than Google, Apple can match the cars, sensors, processors, navigational systems and other pieces of hardware that Google might deploy. It can replicate the sophisticated maps that Google has compiled. It will have a very hard time, however, catching up with Google’s on-the-road learning.

Google’s lead in autonomous cars is certainly very meaningful and very impressive. Very. It’s based on great talent, foresight, timing, and hard work. It’s one of the many reasons I respect and really like Google (/Alphabet). And, even if there’s a much more gradual, prolonged shift to autonomous cars — i.e., via semi-autonomous cars – Google is in a strong position to capitalize on that.

And Chunka Mui is right to say that Apple will have a “very hard time” catching up. By definition, the nature of the problem that Google, Apple and others aim to solve is “very hard”. And, more to Mui’s point, it’s true that reaching Google’s level of proficiency will be, again in his words, “very hard”.

But, so what? It would be a mistake to equate “very hard” with unlikely.

First, it’s very, extremely, immensely early in the shift to autonomous cars. And, as an aside, it’s so early that even if Apple’s first car isn’t a fully autonomous car, it might be *exactly* the right product for that moment in time.

Second, to generalize, the one thing Apple (like Google and Tesla) is good at is solving “very hard” problems. And, unlike Google, Apple has, for years, solved ones that combine computing and physical interaction; bits and atoms, integrated.

Third, there are many dimensions of competition. (The contrast between Google’s approach to mobile devices and Apple’s illustrates this perfectly.) In the context of cars, Google has amassed a lead in one major one: autonomy. In smartphone terms, that’s like mastering the very essential aspect of — pick your analogy – connectivity, sensing, imaging. Each one is an essential-but-not-sufficient condition for success. (I’ll highlight other conditions or dimensions in upcoming posts.)

So, Mui’s article is well worth reading. But, to beat the smartphone analogy to death, it’s the year 1995, in smartphone terms. And yes, some will say “Time moves ‘faster’ now; competitors learn at an accelerated pace. ‘1995-to-now’ will happen rapidly”. In some ways, that’s true. But there are also key differences: regulation, consumer psyche, and a very high-stakes environment, where quality, privacy, and security matter at — to use a Google term — a 10X level. It’s too early to discount Apple.

Apple is building a self-driving car in Silicon Valley, and is scouting for secure locations in the Bay Area to test it, the Guardian has learned. Documents obtained by the Guardian show the oft-rumoured Apple car project appears to be further along than many suspected.

Self-driving? We haven’t heard that before. And the article doesn’t explain the basis for that thinking.1 I do take it with a grain of salt. But if an Apple car does launch by 2020, and if Google, Tesla, and others have self-driving models (or nearly-so), then … it’ll be an interesting situation.

Key things to remember: early reports are often wrong, plans change, and competition happens along many, many dimensions.